Search

Ammonium propionate is authorised as a liquid preparation of ≥ 19% ammonium propionate, ≤ 80% propionic acid and ≤ 30% water. The applicant requested for the renewal of the authorisation of ammonium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of ammonium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin and eyes. Any exposure is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R618 as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening and reared for laying. The additive has never been authorised. The strain under assessment S. cerevisiae (NCYC R618) qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) and, consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the product is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the skin and eye irritation or skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive under the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of fumaric acid as a technological and sensory additive (functional groups: preservative and flavouring compounds, respectively) and for a new use of the additive as a technological additive (functional group: acidity regulator) for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that fumaric acid remains safe under the authorised conditions of use for the terrestrial animals, consumers and the environment. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the aquatic animals under all authorised condition of use. Fumaric acid is irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser due to the presence of nickel. The Panel also considers that the new use of the additive as an acidity regulator under proposed conditions of use would not introduce risks not already considered. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation (for its use as preservative and flavouring compound). The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of fumaric acid as an acidity regulator in feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 32651 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in all fresh material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. buchneri is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The additive is not an eye irritant. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive consisting of L. buchneri DSM 32651 at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material may extend the aerobic stability of silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 28%–45%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l‐arginine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 7.401). The additive is intended to be used in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The genetic modifications introduced do not raise safety concerns. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the final product. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive does not pose any safety concern with regard to the production strain. l‐Arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed and water. The use of l‐arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for persons handling the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or to be a dermal or respiratory sensitiser. The additive l‐arginine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.401 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐arginine for non‐ruminant species. For supplemental l‐arginine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of lutein‐rich extract of Tagetes erecta L. as sensory additive (functional group: Colourants (ii) substances which, when fed to animals, add colours to food of animal origin) for turkeys for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for chickens for fattening and minor poultry for fattening and laying hens and minor poultry for laying. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta is safe for turkeys for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed use level of 80 mg total carotenoids/kg complete feed. The Panel concluded that the use of lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use would not be of concern for the consumer, considering also its use in other poultry for fattening and for laying hens. Regarding user safety, the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta extract is irritant to skin and eyes and any exposure is considered a risk. The conclusions on user safety reached for the lutein‐rich extract of T. erecta would, in principle, apply to preparations made with it. The use of the additive in feed for turkeys for fattening under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to colour the skin of turkeys for fattening at the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long‐living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product containing endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (ECONASE® XT) as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancer) for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species. ECONASE® XT is available in two liquid and three solid forms and is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (CBS 114044). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the genetic modification of the production strain does not raise any safety concerns, and viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The Panel also concluded that ECONASE® XT is safe for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of the additive raises no safety concerns for the consumers of products derived from animals fed with the additive or for the environment. The liquid and solid forms of ECONASE® XT are non‐irritant to the skin, but only the liquid forms were confirmed as non‐irritant to the eyes and not dermal sensitisers. The Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential to the eyes and the dermal sensitisation potential for the solid forms. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in pigs for fattening at 20,000 BXU/kg complete feed, in all laying poultry species at 12,000 BXU/kg complete feed and in minor poultry species other than laying birds at 8000 BXU/kg complete feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐valine produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (CGMCC 22721) as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concludes that l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The FEEDAP Panel has concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons, and due to the risk of imbalances when administered simultaneously via feed. The use of l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers and for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of l‐valine produced using E. coli CGMCC 22721 to irritant to the skin or eyes, a dermal or respiratory sensitiser due to the lack of data. The endotoxin activity of the additive does not represent a hazard for users handling the additive when exposed by inhalation. The additive l‐valine produced by fermentation using E. coli CGMCC 22721 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐valine for non‐ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l‐valine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the feed additive consisting of 3‐phytase produced with a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CECT 13171). The additive is intended to be used as a zootechnical additive for poultry species, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for fattening. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substance used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel could not conclude on the taxonomic identification of the production strain. Moreover, the presence of viable cells of the production strain in the final formulations of the product could not be excluded. Therefore, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety for the target species, consumers, users and environment. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the characterisation of the production strain and the absence of its viable cells in the final product. Based on the data provided, the identification of CECT 13171 as K. phaffii was confirmed and no viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final formulations of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 3‐phytase produced with the genetically modified strain K. phaffii CECT 13171 does not give rise to any safety concern as regard to the production strain. Consequently, the additive, in both its liquid and solid formulations, is safe for the target species, consumers, users and environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tartrazine as sensory additive (functional group: (a) colourants: (i) substances that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs). Tartrazine is intended to be incorporated in fishing baits up to a maximum of 30 mg/kg in complementary feed in order to colour them and attract fish in freshwater (ponds, rivers), for both recreational and competitive fishing. The additive is not intended for use in aquaculture. Tartrazine is already authorised for use with cats and dogs, ornamental fish, grain‐eating ornamental birds and small rodents. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of tartrazine in the preparation of baits for freshwater fish under the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the target animals. The use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive should be considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. The FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the irritation potential of the additive. In absence of data, no conclusion can be reached on the efficacy of tartrazine in freshwater fish baits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Propionic acid is currently authorised as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicants have provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of propionic acid under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive to the skin and any exposure to users is considered a risk. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase (produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755) and endo‐1,3(4)‐beta‐glucanase (produced with T. reesei MUCL 49754) (AveMix® XG 10/AveMix® XG 10 L) for the renewal of its authorisation as zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening. The applicant declared a change in the carrier material used in AveMix® XG 10 from soybean meal to calcium carbonate + wheat flour or calcium carbonate + sepiolite. The applicant provided evidence that the additive Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + wheat flour and Avemix® XG 10 L comply with the conditions of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) noted that no data were submitted to support compliance of the formulation of Avemix® XG 10 with calcium carbonate + sepiolite with the conditions of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that both forms of the additive remain safe for pigs for fattening, minor porcine species for fattening and turkeys for fattening, consumers and the environment. Regarding the safety for the user, Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + sepiolite and Avemix® XG 10 L are not irritant to skin and eyes. No conclusions on the irritation potential of Avemix® XG 10 formulated with calcium carbonate + wheat flour could be drawn. The additive in all its formulations is considered a respiratory and skin sensitiser. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of liquid l‐lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l‐lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐67535 and NRRL B‐67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B‐68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l‐Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission asked EFSA for a risk assessment on small organoarsenic species in food. For monomethylarsonic acid MMA(V), decreased body weight resulting from diarrhoea in rats was identified as the critical endpoint and a BMDL10 of 18.2 mg MMA(V)/kg body weight (bw) per day (equivalent to 9.7 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as a reference point (RP). For dimethylarsinic acid DMA(V), increased incidence in urinary bladder tumours in rats was identified as the critical endpoint. A BMDL10 of 1.1 mg DMA(V)/kg bw per day (equivalent to 0.6 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as an RP. For other small organoarsenic species, the toxicological data are insufficient to identify critical effects and RPs, and they could not be included in the risk assessment. For both MMA(V) and DMA(V), the toxicological database is incomplete and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied for risk characterisation. The highest chronic dietary exposure to DMA(V) was estimated in 'Toddlers', with rice and fish meat as the main contributors across population groups. For MMA(V), the highest chronic dietary exposures were estimated for high consumers of fish meat and processed/preserved fish in 'Infants' and 'Elderly' age class, respectively. For MMA(V), an MOE of ≥ 500 was identified not to raise a health concern. For MMA(V), all MOEs were well above 500 for average and high consumers and thus do not raise a health concern. For DMA(V), an MOE of 10,000 was identified as of low health concern as it is genotoxic and carcinogenic, although the mechanisms of genotoxicity and its role in carcinogenicity of DMA(V) are not fully elucidated. For DMA(V), MOEs were below 10,000 in many cases across dietary surveys and age groups, in particular for some 95th percentile exposures. The Panel considers that this would raise a health concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and five derivatives in food. Neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity were considered as the critical effects of TBBPA in rodent studies. The available evidence indicates that the carcinogenicity of TBBPA occurs via non‐genotoxic mechanisms. Taking into account the new data, the CONTAM Panel considered it appropriate to set a tolerable daily intake (TDI). Based on decreased interest in social interaction in male mice, a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified and selected as the reference point for the risk characterisation. Applying the default uncertainty factor of 100 for inter‐ and intraspecies variability, and a factor of 3 to extrapolate from the LOAEL to NOAEL, a TDI for TBBPA of 0.7 μg/kg bw per day was established. Around 2100 analytical results for TBBPA in food were used to estimate dietary exposure for the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary LB exposure to TBBPA were fish and seafood, meat and meat products and milk and dairy products. The exposure estimates to TBBPA were all below the TDI, including those estimated for breastfed and formula‐fed infants. Accounting for the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the CONTAM Panel concluded with 90%–95% certainty that the current dietary exposure to TBBPA does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. There were insufficient data on the toxicity of any of the TBBPA derivatives to derive reference points, or to allow a comparison with TBBPA that would support assignment to an assessment group for the purposes of combined risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in feed and food. The assessment focused on hexaCNs due to very limited data on other PCN congeners. For hexaCNs in feed, 217 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures for food‐producing and non‐food‐producing animals; however, a risk characterisation could not be performed because none of the toxicological studies allowed identification of reference points. The oral repeated dose toxicity studies performed in rats with a hexaCN mixture containing all 10 hexaCNs indicated that the critical target was the haematological system. A BMDL20 of 0.05 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified for a considerable decrease in the platelet count. For hexaCNs in food, 2317 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures across dietary surveys and age groups. The highest exposure ranged from 0.91 to 29.8 pg/kg bw per day in general population and from 220 to 559 pg/kg bw per day for breast‐fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs for the high dietary exposures ranged from 1,700,000 to 55,000,000 for the general population and from 90,000 to 230,000 for breast‐fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. These MOEs are far above the minimum MOE of 2000 that does not raise a health concern. Taking account of the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded with at least 99% certainty that dietary exposure to hexaCNs does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. Due to major limitations in the available data, no assessment was possible for genotoxic effects or for health risks of PCNs other than hexaCNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This statement provides scientific guidance on the information needed to support the risk assessment of the detoxification processes applied to products intended for animal feed in line with the acceptability criteria of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide an update of the 2012 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) on the risks for animal health related to the presence of ergot alkaloids (EAs) in feed. EAs are produced by several fungi of the Claviceps and Epichloë genera. This Opinion focussed on the 14 EAs produced by C. purpurea (ergocristine, ergotamine, ergocornine, α‐ and β‐ergocryptine, ergometrine, ergosine and their corresponding 'inine' epimers). Effects observed with EAs from C. africana (mainly dihydroergosine) and Epichloë (ergovaline/−inine) were also evaluated. There is limited information on toxicokinetics in food and non‐food producing animals. However, transfer from feed to food of animal origin is negligible. The major effects of EAs are related to vasoconstriction and are exaggerated during extreme temperatures. In addition, EAs cause a decrease in prolactin, resulting in a reduced milk production. Based on the sum of the EAs, the Panel considered the following as Reference Points (RPs) in complete feed for adverse animal health effects: for pigs and piglets 0.6 mg/kg, for chickens for fattening and hens 2.1 and 3.7 mg/kg, respectively, for ducks 0.2 mg/kg, bovines 0.1 mg/kg and sheep 0.3 mg/kg. A total of 19,023 analytical results on EAs (only from C. purpurea) in feed materials and compound feeds were available for the exposure assessment (1580 samples). Dietary exposure was assessed using two feeding scenarios (model diets and compound feeds). Risk characterisation was done for the animals for which an RP could be identified. The CONTAM Panel considers that, based on exposure from model diets, the presence of EAs in feed raises a health concern in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and bovines, while for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks, ovines and caprines, the health concern related to EAs in feed is low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in food, focusing on 10 congeners: BDE‐28, ‐47, ‐49, ‐99, ‐100, ‐138, ‐153, ‐154, ‐183 and ‑209. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour and reproductive/developmental effects are the critical effects in rodent studies. For four congeners (BDE‐47, ‐99, ‐153, ‐209) the Panel derived Reference Points, i.e. benchmark doses and corresponding lower 95% confidence limits (BMDLs), for endpoint‐specific benchmark responses. Since repeated exposure to PBDEs results in accumulation of these chemicals in the body, the Panel estimated the body burden at the BMDL in rodents, and the chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans. For the remaining six congeners no studies were available to identify Reference Points. The Panel concluded that there is scientific basis for inclusion of all 10 congeners in a common assessment group and performed a combined risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the combined margin of exposure (MOET) approach was the most appropriate risk metric and applied a tiered approach to the risk characterisation. Over 84,000 analytical results for the 10 congeners in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary Lower Bound exposure to PBDEs were meat and meat products and fish and seafood. Taking into account the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded that it is likely that current dietary exposure to PBDEs in the European population raises a health concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2009 risk assessment on arsenic in food carrying out a hazard assessment of inorganic arsenic (iAs) and using the revised exposure assessment issued by EFSA in 2021. Epidemiological studies show that the chronic intake of iAs via diet and/or drinking water is associated with increased risk of several adverse outcomes including cancers of the skin, bladder and lung. The CONTAM Panel used the benchmark dose lower confidence limit based on a benchmark response (BMR) of 5% (relative increase of the background incidence after adjustment for confounders, BMDL05) of 0.06 μg iAs/kg bw per day obtained from a study on skin cancer as a Reference Point (RP). Inorganic As is a genotoxic carcinogen with additional epigenetic effects and the CONTAM Panel applied a margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk characterisation. In adults, the MOEs are low (range between 2 and 0.4 for mean consumers and between 0.9 and 0.2 at the 95th percentile exposure, respectively) and as such raise a health concern despite the uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium ferrocyanide as a technological feed additive, functional group anticaking agents, for all animal species. The additive potassium ferrocyanide is intended to be used in potassium chloride with a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anion/kg salt. The use of potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to potassium chloride at a maximum content of 150 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for: pigs for fattening and lactating sows, sheep, goats, salmon and dogs. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening, laying hens, turkeys, piglets, veal calf, cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horse, rabbit and cats. In the absence of information on the use of potassium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of potassium chloride, supplemented with 150 mg ferrocyanide/kg, can be made. The use of potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that potassium ferrocyanide is not irritant to skin and eye and is not a skin sensitiser. However, due to the presence of nickel, the additive should be considered as a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. The available data do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to conclude on the safety of the additive for the soil and the marine environment, while the use of the additive in land‐based aquaculture according to the proposed conditions of use is considered of no concern. Potassium ferrocyanide is considered to be efficacious as an anticaking agent when included in potassium chloride at the proposed use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of potassium and sodium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. The additives sodium‐ and potassium ferrocyanide are intended to be used in sodium chloride with a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anion (anhydrous)/kg salt. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anion/kg for: turkey for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds; all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbit, horse, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. In the absence of a margin of safety, the use of sodium and potassium chloride according to the proposed conditions of use is not considered to be safe for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys. In the absence of information on the use of sodium chloride in the diets for any other animal species, no conclusion on a potentially safe level of sodium chloride, supplemented with 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg, could be made. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for consumer safety. The results of in vivo studies showed that sodium and potassium ferrocyanide are not irritant to skin and eye and are not skin sensitisers. However, owing to the presence of nickel, sodium ferrocyanide, is considered a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be reached on the safety of the user exposed via inhalation for potassium ferrocyanide. The use of sodium and potassium ferrocyanide as feed additives is considered safe for the environment. The additives are considered to be efficacious as anticaking agents in sodium chloride at the proposed use level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of N‐nitrosamines (N‐NAs) in food. The risk assessment was confined to those 10 carcinogenic N‐NAs occurring in food (TCNAs), i.e. NDMA, NMEA, NDEA, NDPA, NDBA, NMA, NSAR, NMOR, NPIP and NPYR. N‐NAs are genotoxic and induce liver tumours in rodents. The in vivo data available to derive potency factors are limited, and therefore, equal potency of TCNAs was assumed. The lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose at 10% (BMDL10) was 10 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day, derived from the incidence of rat liver tumours (benign and malignant) induced by NDEA and used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Analytical results on the occurrence of N‐NAs were extracted from the EFSA occurrence database (n = 2,817) and the literature (n = 4,003). Occurrence data were available for five food categories across TCNAs. Dietary exposure was assessed for two scenarios, excluding (scenario 1) and including (scenario 2) cooked unprocessed meat and fish. TCNAs exposure ranged from 0 to 208.9 ng/kg bw per day across surveys, age groups and scenarios. 'Meat and meat products' is the main food category contributing to TCNA exposure. MOEs ranged from 3,337 to 48 at the P95 exposure excluding some infant surveys with P95 exposure equal to zero. Two major uncertainties were (i) the high number of left censored data and (ii) the lack of data on important food categories. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the MOE for TCNAs at the P95 exposure is highly likely (98–100% certain) to be less than 10,000 for all age groups, which raises a health concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]